Malta Refuses to Enforce $740 Million U.S. Judgment

Image by MARCIN CZERNIAWSKI from Pixabay

On February 13, 2025, a Maltese court refused to enforce a $740 million default judgment issued by the 15th Judicial Circuit Court of Florida (Palm Beach County) in a defamation suit brought by Mehmet Tatlici (“Mehmet”) against his half-brother, Ugur Tatlici (“Ugur”).  The Florida court’s award—issued on January 8, 2020, in a defamation suit filed by Mehmet against Ugur—was deemed procedurally deficient and substantively incompatible with Malta’s public policy, particularly due to its lack of reasoning and its chilling effect on free expression.

The Maltese court found that the Florida default judgment—submitted as a redacted, one-page certification—could not be meaningfully reviewed, as the complete, reasoned version was essential to assess whether any part of the judgment violated Maltese ordre public. The court emphasized that it is not for the issuing court’s clerk to determine what may be withheld, and that the absence of judicial reasoning in a claim involving hundreds of millions in damages was, in itself, contrary to Malta’s fundamental procedural standards and ordre public. Notably, the court flagged the stratospheric scale of the damages—€659,932,000—as irreconcilable with Malta’s defamation laws, viewing enforcement as a potential threat to freedom of speech and contrary to Malta’s public policy.

At the same time, parallel enforcement proceedings remain ongoing in Turkey, where Mehmet is seeking recognition and enforcement of the same Florida judgment. Simultaneously, a criminal investigation is underway in Turkey, concerning felonies of fraud, aggravated fraud, and document forgery in relation to how the Florida judgment was procured.

Background and Procedural History

The proceedings stem from a protracted intra-family dispute between Mehmet and Ugur, heirs to the late Turkish billionaire Salih Tatlici. On January 8, 2020, a state court in Florida entered a default judgment in favor of Mehmet, awarding him $740 million in damages for alleged defamation. The judgment was based on Mehmet’s allegations that online publications on websites and social media had harmed his reputation and caused the collapse of a real estate project in Istanbul, the legitimacy of which is now disputed and appears to be addressed before a court in Turkey for alleged fraud.

Ugur denies any involvement in the publications and maintains that the defamatory material was fabricated by Mehmet and his Florida lawyers. According to his filings and expert submissions, the alleged real estate project was never viable to begin with. These same materials state that the project was legally impossible under Istanbul’s zoning laws, relied on fictitious contractual arrangements, and was tied to a Romanian company with only $50 in registered capital, two offshore shareholders, and a concealed ultimate beneficial owner lacking any credible financial capacity to support a development of that scale.  Ugur also states that he was not provided with notice of the Florida proceedings at the time and therefore had no opportunity to contest the allegations or raise these objections in the original action. He argues that the judgment was obtained by default through fraud and misrepresentation.

Following the Florida judgment, Mehmet sought recognition and enforcement in Malta and Turkey. In Malta, the suit was dismissed on February 13, 2025, as discussed at greater length below.

Meanwhile, enforcement efforts are ongoing in Turkey, where the case is before the Istanbul 13th Civil Court of First Instance presided over by Judge Hakan Kabalci. In parallel, Turkish prosecutors have opened a criminal investigation into the circumstances surrounding the Florida judgment, focusing on felonies of fraud, aggravated fraud, and document forgery.

The Maltese Court’s Decision

The Civil Court (First Hall) of Malta, presided by Judge Toni Abela LL.D., denied enforcement of the $740 million (€659 million) Florida defamation judgment on three bases: (1) the unreasoned and incomplete nature of the Florida judgment, (2) Maltese and EU principles of free expression, and (3) lack of jurisdiction.

An Incomplete Judgment

A critical basis for the court’s decision not to enforce the Florida judgment was the failure to submit a full, reasoned version of the Florida judgment. The proof of the default judgment consisted of a single-page handwritten jury verdict form, devoid of any accompanying judicial opinion explaining the basis for the award. The court stated that such a submission made it impossible to evaluate whether the judgment was consistent with Maltese public order and emphasized that reasoned judgments are not merely technical requirements but essential to meaningful judicial review. Procedural formalities, the court stated, are part of ordre public in Malta and cannot be waived, even with party consent.  This alone rendered the application unenforceable.

Significantly, this procedural deficiency mirrors difficulties Applicant Mehmet Tatlici is encountering in ongoing Turkish enforcement proceedings, where the Applicant has also been requested to provide a complete, authenticated copy of the Florida judgment.

Free Expression

In addition to these procedural failings, the court strongly objected to the scale of damages awarded in a defamation action. It observed that such “stratospheric” sums are entirely incompatible with the way defamation is treated under Maltese law. The court emphasized that while monetary penalties for defamation are permissible, they must not have a chilling effect on individual expression or public discourse.

The court explicitly referenced the applicant’s own anticipation that the respondent might invoke a SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) defense. While Malta does not directly adjudicate the merits of U.S. legal standards, it emphasized that the chilling effect of such judgments—especially when arising from online speech—raises serious concerns under Maltese and European principles of democratic discourse. Crucially, the court did not make any findings as to whether Ugur authored the allegedly defamatory material. It declined to engage with the underlying merits of the Florida judgment and limited itself to the enforceability of that decision under Maltese law.

Lack of Jurisdiction

The court also held that it lacked jurisdiction under Article 742 of the Maltese Code of Organization and Civil Procedure. The application failed to establish any sufficient nexus with Malta—either through residence, assets, or subject matter.

Broader Analysis

The Tatlici decision highlights how courts in recognition proceedings are increasingly attentive to the substantive and procedural legitimacy of foreign default judgments—particularly in cases involving defamation, extraordinary damages, and minimal jurisdictional connection to the forum of origin. Rather than approaching enforcement as a purely formal exercise in judicial comity, the Maltese court subjected the Florida judgment to a rigorous public policy review, grounded in Maltese constitutional values and European legal standards.

Defamation Judgments

This cautious approach is especially warranted in defamation matters, which remain a notoriously unsettled area of private international law. The Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters, which aims to promote the mutual recognition and enforcement of civil and commercial judgments across borders, expressly excludes defamation claims from its scope. This exclusion is not incidental—it reflects the deep and enduring divergences between legal systems in balancing reputation and freedom of expression, and in regulating media liability, damage awards, and procedural safeguards.

As a result, defamation judgments—especially when obtained by default and accompanied by disproportionate damages—remain subject to domestic standards in the enforcing forum. The Tatlici ruling exemplifies how national courts can, and must, use that discretion to filter out foreign judgments that fail to meet local thresholds of proportionality and constitutional legitimacy.

In this respect, the case underlines a growing transatlantic divergence. Although the United States offers strong First Amendment protections in theory, and although it has enacted a federal statute—the SPEECH Act—which directs U.S. courts not to enforce many foreign judgments for libel and defamation, its legal system permits extraordinary libel damages, especially through default, without requiring the detailed judicial reasoning expected in civil-law jurisdictions. In Europe, by contrast, the enforcement of such awards is viewed not only as a matter of technical admissibility, but as a question of whether the judgment itself comports with core constitutional commitments—particularly the protection of democratic discourse and media freedom.

The Tatlici judgment sits comfortably alongside other recent European decisions—such as Real Madrid v. Le Monde in France and ZDF in Germany—which have refused to enforce even intra-EU defamation rulings where the outcome would infringe national free expression standards. These cases reflect the principle that domestic free expression standards must not be undermined by “importing” judgments from systems with differing legal thresholds.

Default Judgments and Lack of Jurisdiction

The question of jurisdiction further reinforces the court’s reasoning. In both Tatlici and the New Zealand case Kea Investments Ltd v. Wikeley Family Trustee Ltd, the enforcing courts questioned the legitimacy of default judgments rendered in forums with no meaningful connection to the underlying dispute. In Tatlici, the Florida judgment was entered by default, despite both parties being Turkish nationals, with no substantial ties to Florida, and the disputed real estate project located in Istanbul. Similarly, in Kea, the Kentucky default judgment was obtained without adversarial process. Notably, while the New Zealand Court of Appeal ultimately lifted an anti-enforcement injunction on procedural grounds, it upheld the High Court’s finding that the judgment had been fraudulently procured and was not entitled to recognition.

The Kea case offers a compelling comparative example, where the courts found a U.S. default judgment to be fraudulently obtained and not entitled to recognition, despite ultimately reversing an anti-enforcement injunction on procedural grounds. Though the injunction was lifted, the underlying concerns remained and reinforced the principle that fraudulently and strategically engineered default judgments cannot be presumed enforceable.

In both cases, the core issue is not hostility to foreign law, but resistance to opportunistic use of foreign legal systems to generate leverage in unrelated or parallel disputes. The Tatlici decision affirms that enforcement forums are not neutral venues for rubber-stamping foreign awards. They are guardians of legal coherence and public policy, tasked with ensuring that enforcement respects the procedural and constitutional identity of the local legal order.

Taken together, these themes point toward a developing global norm that recognition and enforcement of defamation judgments will continue to operate outside the harmonized legal frameworks of instruments like the Hague Judgements Convention—and rightly so. The reasons are structural, not incidental. As long as national systems take various positions on how to balance speech, reputation, and remedies, enforcement will remain subject to localized scrutiny, particularly when judgments are opaque, exorbitant, or jurisdictionally artificial.

Conclusion

While Malta has now delivered a clear repudiation of the Florida judgment on procedural and public policy grounds, the spotlight now shifts to Turkey, where enforcement proceedings remain ongoing, and a parallel criminal investigation is actively examining whether the judgment was procured through fraud. As the jurisdiction most closely connected to both parties and to the disputed commercial project at the heart of the defamation claim, Turkey is uniquely positioned to conduct a fuller legal inquiry—assuming the proceedings unfold independently and free from undue influence.

The outcome of the Turkish proceedings may prove decisive—not only for the parties involved but also for evolving standards of cross-border enforceability. In this sense, Tatlici is a test of how national courts respond to foreign default judgments used strategically— and whether such judgments can withstand scrutiny in jurisdictions with stronger procedural safeguards and a more immediate interest in the truth.

[This post is cross-posted at conflictoflaws.net.]